Holy shit that is a Goomba. It’s just one of those images that the longer you look…

Yo, that Mushroom boy is holding a HUGE knife.

The push to get people to stop saying it Streisand Effected the word into a slur. There’s no reason it shouldn’t have just gone the way of "moron,

Sure. But it didn’t. And now it is a slur. And no matter how much you’d like to defend your version of the word, that isn’t what it means. Sitting in your own bubble and insisting on your own version of language history doesn’t change the meaning of the word to the evolving world.

So, we’re just going to pretend that language doesn’t evolve because it justifies your bias?

People didn’t put their foot down when the meaning of those words began to shift, and now they mean something entirely different. In our more socially and culturally aware culture, we as a people understand nuance and are generally educated enough to see what’s happening. We have by and large decided that it’s a bad thing to continue normalizing attacking the mentally disabled.

Fuck off with your pseudo-intellectual defense of toxic, dehumanizing culture. Words mean things. The things they mean can change. Those ones, in a less educated and accepting time, did. The ones we have now have not. Your attempt to dismiss that is genuinely hateful.

Imagine calling the difference between people who do stupid things and people who are born with diagnosed mental illnesses “splitting hairs”.

It’s very, very simple. In one case, you are attacking someone who is completely in control of their mental facilities. In the other, you are attacking people who are literally incapable of defending themselves, from birth. They are not synonymous. If you think that level of punching down is okay, then be as indignant and self-righteous about it as you want, but you deserve to be told.

Watching the wheels turn when a straight person, upset by being forgotten, is told that this is what LGBTQ+ people are used to and have had to deal with for most of history.

chef’s kiss

It’s kind of like Kahoot, but there’s a greater variety of games.

The teacher hosts a game with a question set they either found it made, and each student joins on a device. They’re givegiven the questions and selecting correct answers earns them something relative to the game.

The most traditional one is the one that was described here, where they are given every question in sequence and are awarded points for the accuracy and speed of their answers, but there is some great variety. There’s a tower defense game where correct answers give you the currency to buy and upgrade towers, a “survivors”-like game where a correct answer is required to be given a choice of weapon upgrades and several variants on slot machine-esque games, where correct answers gives them a random bonus ranging across gaining score, multiplying score or stealing score from other players.

I like to use it with the kids whenever I require some rote memorization. Ie, we’re reviewing terms we’ve used or will be using in a unit, or we’re refreshing things they’re supposed to have learned in previous years.

There’s some great single-player options too, if you ever find yourself struggling to deal with rote memorization for any courses you’d take as an adult, too. While it’s definitely targeted towards classrooms and kids, the games are imo substantially more engaging ways to memorize things that are in general hard to care about outside of a requirement for some job, diploma or degree.

Damn, my grade 7 class is cringe af. Kid keeps naming himself “skibidisigma” every time we play Blooket.

“Steal a little, they throw you in jail. Steal a lot, they make you a king”.

I’m curious. What game do you think drops to single digits fps on medium settings with a 1080TI?

I was playing Darktide on a 1060 with minimum 30fps recently, and that game is optimized like absolute trash.

A 1080TI still plays every release at medium or higher settings. /shrug

Unless you’re worried about 4k or VR, I wouldn’t upgrade anyway.

This could in fact be any generation.

Maybe we let professionals decide what tool is best for their field

Hey, really appreciated. Having random potentially uneducated, inexperienced people chime in on what they think I’m doing wrong in my classroom based on the tiniest snippet of information really shouldn’t matter, but it’s disheartening nontheless.

While I take their point, I also wouldn’t walk into a garage and tell someone what they’re doing wrong with a vehicle, or tell a doctor I ran into on the streets that they’re misdiagnosing people based on a comment I overheard. Yet, because I work with children, I get this all the time. So, again, appreciated.

I use it as a brainstorming tool. I haven’t had a single question make it as-is to a student’s worksheet. If the tool can’t even count to 20 successfully, I’m not sure how anyone could trust it to generate meaningful questions for an ELA program.

I regularly use ChatGPT to generate questions for junior high worksheets. You would be surprised how easily it fucks up “generate 20 multiple choice and 10 short answer questions”. Most frequently at about 12-13 multiple choice it gives up and moves on. When I point out its flaw and ask it to finish generating the multiple choice, it continues to find new and unique ways to fuck up coming up with the remaining questions.

I would say it gives me simple count and recall errors in about 60% of my attempts to use it.

But you do know which one it is, because you said “other child”. As soon as you ask the question, you assign a specific outcome to a specific child eliminating HH and HT (or in the new example, BB and BG). “What are the odds they have a female child” and “what are the odds the other child is female” are not the same question.

Well, I guess OPs point is demonstrated. People will in fact argue about it.

What you’re trying to present has multiple holes, but only one matters: you’re not paying attention to the question that’s being asked. You can say first, second, alpha, beta, Leslie, whatever you want to assign the child in question as, but the question only asks you the gender of a singular child. The door opening child doesn’t matter, because it isn’t part of the question. No one asked what gender that child is. No one asked what the odds they have a female child is. It just isn’t a part of the question.

Yes, I referred to it as the second child because the question that was asked happens to have a child in it and ask you about another. Because we’re communicating in a hilariously precise language, we have to say “the other child”. But that doesn’t make the door opening child a part of the equation. The question could be “there is a child in a box. What are the odds the child is female? Oh, it has a brother by the way.” Cool, who cares, the sibling wasn’t a part of the question.

The Monty Hall problem spreads multiple outcomes across multiple choices and then eliminates one. The outcomes and options have a relation. This question just asks you about a singular variable with two possible outcomes and throws around an unrelated red herring.

It doesn’t, though. The Monty Hall problem utilizes the fact that there were more possibilities before one was eliminated AND that it cannot eliminate the “best” outcome. No such qualities are at play here.

The question being asked here is “what is the gender of the second child?” The gender of the first child is completely irrelevent. Observed or unobserved, door open or closed, it doesn’t impact the outcome of the second child.

I suspect it’s not the question OP intended to ask, but it’s the question they asked nonetheless.

This is actually a super fascinating example of the way data can be displayed in a technically correct way to lead the viewer to completely invalid conclusions.

There isn’t even an attempt to suggest that there is some form of greater good at play here. They just apologetically do it and make no excuses. This is oppression, plain and simple.